Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
noticed but i'm just wondering how dpw generally follows up with residents with these concerns. i think there is some comments made that the department's hearing was in june and that the first they had learned of this kind of was a few days ago, but i'm just wondering what's your general process of following up with residents. >> thank you, commissioner. thank you, supervisor. normally what happens is usually within 30 days of a hearing, we would provide a finding or notification to all the people who attended that hearing. in this specific case, because there was additional review required, it delayed -- without that information we could not make a final decision and that delayed it. we were unable until approximately early to mid-november to generate the final finding in this case and i think it became a timing issue of getting it to the citizens and the people who were at that hearing and then as it relates also to supporting this to this board at this point, but we normally do try to inform the people at the hearing and the applicant within 30 days or once a decision has been made
sounds like maybe dpw, we might have dropped the ball in terms of the noticing, if there's an error in reporting. i understand they got some special findings late in the game and in order for them to package it all up and bring to land use and complete the time lane that things were a little bit rushed. supervisor wiener, i don't think that's the normal standard of, from what i've seen working with dpw >> what i would say is the sponsor of the legislation is not here and neither is supervisor campos. my inclination would be, i would want them to weigh in on this, so my inclination would be to forward it to the board where they will be, they will always have the option to continue it or to send it back to committee. if they were here now we could ask them that, but that would be, that's one option that we would pursue. >> that's to forward to the board without recommendation. >> yeah, i could agree with that. i also want to go on record, our office spoke with supervisor campos who was in favor of this particular project but it's probably better that we hear it from him as opposed
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)